Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Sunil R Lamani vs Deptt Of Posts on 23 October, 2024
1
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 170/00331/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 17.10.2024
DATE OF ORDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, M (J)
HON'BLE Dr Sanjiv Kumar, MEMBER (A)
Sunil R. Lamani,
Age 30 years,
S/o Ramappa R. Lamani,
Ex- GDS BPM,
Gunjavati A/W Mudgod,
Sirsi Postal Dn,
Sirsi - 581 402,
Residing at
Obalapura SLT
Obalapura Post - 591 123,
Ramdurg T.K.
Belgavi District ... Applicant.
(By Shri P. Kamalesan, learned counsel)
Vs.
2
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
1. Union of India,
Reptd. by Secretary,
Department of Post,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Chief Post Master General,
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Post Master General,
N.K. Region,
Dharwad - 580 001.
4. Superintendent of Post offices,
Sirsi Postal Dn,
Sirsi - 581 402. ... Respondents.
(By Learned counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty)
O R D E R (Final)
PER: JUSTICE B.K. Shrivastava, MEMBER (J)
This OA has been filed on 13.07.2023, for the quashment of removal order (Anx -A7) and the revisional order (Anx A-10). The relief claimed in Para 8 of the OA are as under:
'i) Quash office of the superintendent of post offices, Sirsi Dn, Sirsi -581402 Memo No. F- 4/1/Gunjavathi/SRL/2018 dated:
10-03-2020, vide Annexure-A7 issued by respondent No.4.3
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
ii) Quash O/O Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad-
580001 Memo No. NKR/VIG/Pet/804/ 2021 dated: 15-11-2021 Annexure-A10 issued by respondent No.3.
iii) Quash 0/0 chief Post offices, Sirsi Dn, Sirsi- 581402 Memo No.F-4/1/Gunjavathi/SRL/2018 dated: 28-09-2018 vide Annexure-A2. - Issued by Respondent No. 4.
Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service, with all consequential benefits.
iv) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.'
2. In this case at the time of final argument on 17.10.2024, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not want to challenge this OA upon other grounds except the ground of quantum of punishment. Therefore, arguments were heard only upon the quantum of punishment in this case.
3. It is admitted facts that the applicant was provisionally engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak vide order dtd. 27.04.2012 (Anx - A1). The applicant was placed under put off duty vide order dtd. 05.07.2018 (Anx- A2). TRCA as ex-gratia was sanctioned time to time vide order dtd. 14.06.2019 (Anx-A3) and vide order dtd. 05.09.2019 (Anx-A4). 4
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Thereafter, a charge sheet dtd. 28.10.2019 (Anx A-5) was issued. The applicant accepted the charges in writing on 24.01.2020. Therefore the inquiry officer submitted his report upon which after following the due procedure the order Anx-A7 dtd. 10.03.2020 was passed and by the aforesaid order the applicant was "removed from engagement"
with immediate effect. The applicant preferred the revision on 19.07.2021 (Anx-A9) and the revisionary authority also dismissed the revision vide order dtd. 15-11-2021 (Anx-A10).
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that some leniency was required in the punishment but the punishment of removal has been awarded by the concerned authority which is not justified. Looking to the nature of misconduct and the other circumstances lesser punishment should be awarded. The applicant voluntary accepted the charges and he deposited the amount also. Therefore, he was entitled for some leniency.
5. On the other side, the respondents' counsel oppose the contention and submitted that looking to the mischief/misconduct committed by the applicant, proper punishment has been awarded. 5
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE The applicant played with the faith of general public. Therefore, no leniency was required.
6. Whether the proper punishment has been awarded or not? For this purpose the charge sheet should be seen. The charge sheet (Anx- A5) contains three articles of charges which are as under:
''Article - I That the said Sri. Sunil R Lamani GDS BPM (POD) Gunjavathi BO A/W Mundgod SO under Siri HO, while working as GDS BPM Gunjavathi BO, during the period from 20-04-2012 to 05-07-2018, did not account the deposit of Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) in respect of BS account number 3425572244 pertaining to Smt. Farzana Rivaz Jamadar into BO accounts on different dates. ie. Rs. 2000/- each on 20-01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-03-2018. These transactions were entered in said Passbook and date stamp of Gunjavathi BO dated 20-01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-03-2018 were impressed, but he did not take this amount into PO accounts.
By this alleged act, he has violated the Rule 124, 129 (m), 132
(f), 133 (2), and 134 of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28 September, 2007) and there by failed maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as 6 OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE required for him under rule - 21 (i) & of Department of Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.
ARTICLE-II That the said Sri. Sunil R Lamani, GDS BPM (POD) Gunjavathi BO A/w Mundgod SO under Sirsi HO, while working as GDS BPM Gunjavathi BO, during the period from 20-04-2012 to 05-07-2018, did not account the deposit of Rs. 6250/-(Rupees six thousand two hundred fifty only) in respect of SB account number 0752448165 pertaining to Sri. Bikku B Lambar into BO accounts on different dates, ie. Rs. 5550/-on 12-02-2018, Rs. 200/- on 21-02-2018 and Rs.500/- on 26-02- 2018. These transactions were entered in said Passbook and date stamp of Gunjavathi BO dated 12-02-2018, 21-02-2018, 26-02-2018 were impressed, but he did not take this amount into PO accounts.
By this alleged act, he has violated the Rule-124, 129 (m), 132
(f), 133 (2), and 134of Rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th September, 2007) and there by failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule- 21 (i) and (ii) of Department of Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.
ARTICLE-III That the said Sri. Sunil R Lamani, GDS BPM (POD) Gunjavathi BO A/w Mundgod SO under Sirsi HO, while 7 OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE working as GDS BPM Gunjavathi BO, during the period from 20-04-2012 to 05-07-2018, did not account the deposit of Rs. 600/-(Rupees six hundred only) in respect of RD account number 0752534435 pertaining to Sri. Shahil Riyaz Jamadar into BO accounts on different dates ie. Rs 200/- each on 20- 01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-03-2018. These transactions were entered said Passbook and date stamp of Gunjavathi BO dated 20-01-2018, 20-02-2018 and 20-03-2018 were impressed, but he did not take this amount into PO accounts.
By this alleged act, he has violated the Rule-124, 129 (m), 132
(f), 133 (2), and 134 of rules for Branch Offices (Eighth Edition, corrected up to 28th September, 2007) and there by failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under Rule - 21 (i) & (ii) of Department of Posts GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011."
7. The details also annexed with the charge sheet. It appears that the applicant collected the amount from general public and issues the receipts upon the passbook with the date stamp etc. But the applicant did not deposit the amount in the Government fund. He misused the aforesaid amount.
8. In letter dtd. 24.01.2024 (Anx- R2) the applicant admitted the charges. It is stated in the aforesaid letter "The said in above article, I, 8 OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE article II, article III total Rs.12850/- of non credited amount belonging to different depositors used for my person use. By this I admit that I have cheated Postal Department and account holders. I am giving this statement in writing willingly without coming under any pressure during inquiry. I admit all the charges levelled on me in the SPOS Sirsi memo no F-4/1/Gujavati/SRL/2018 dated at Sirsi the 28-10-2019 in article-I, article-II, article-III during inquiry without any pressure."
9. It is submitted by the applicant that he deposited the amount Rs. 43,950 towards the settlement of the claim. The respondents' counsel in his counter reply mentioned that the applicant committed the misappropriation of Rs 39,250. The claims of each account holder were settled in favour of depositors with appropriate interest. Because the amounts were not deposited by the applicant therefore, the depositors were entitled the interest from the date on which they deposited the amount and the receipt was issued by the applicant in their favour. In the case of Union of India V/s M. Duraiswami 2022 (2) All India Service Law General 473. The Supreme Court said on 19.04.2022 that merely because subsequently the employee had 9 OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department, cannot be ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such employee. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled for any sympathy upon the ground of depositing the amount of misappropriation.
10. The approach of the Courts, in dealing with cases of bank and Post office employees, who are responsible for doing the banking work or money transactions with General public, and found accused of serious charges, is very different. The bank/Post-office officials are expected to discharge their duty with utmost integrity and honesty in view of the nature of their duties and functions, involving large financial transactions and public money. Courts deal with such employees with utmost strictness as they are expected to work with highest degree of trustworthiness. In respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed.
11. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
10
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE "14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere.
Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct."
12. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"10. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.11
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...."
13. In State Bank of India v. Ramesh DinkarPunde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"21. Confronted with the facts and the position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that leniency may be shown to the respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance with such submission. As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."12
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Vs. Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3392, said that in respect of delinquent bank employees a distinct jurisprudence has developed. The court relied upon aforesaid cases of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, and State Bank of India v. Ramesh DinkarPunde, (2006) 7 SCC 212and observed:-
"81. Therefore, the approach of the Court towards a bank employee against whom charges of serious financial misconduct has been proved by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, after a reasoned order based on material evidence, should not be lenient and must be dealt in a strict manner. Unless violation of principles of natural justice, inter alia, is said to have been proved by the Petitioner causing prejudice to the Petitioner in his defence, the Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings by the authorities below."
15. Nature of work of post office and Bank is the same in relation to the money transactions. Thus, it is clear that no leniency can be shown to the post office or Bank employee when grave charges against him have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. It has been held that courts do not interfere with quantum of punishment, 13 OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE unless there exists sufficient reasons. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the case of State of Meghalaya and Others Vs Mecken Singh N. Marak,(2008) 7 SCC 580 = 2008(6) SLR 461 (SC) it has been held:-
"14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.14
OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
15. While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands."
16. As per the article of charges, the applicant collected the amount on different dates from the different depositors. The amount was collected for deposit in their saving or RD accounts. The applicant was working as GDS BPM. He also entered the aforesaid transactions in the passbooks of each depositor with date stamp etc. but he did not take the amount into post office account. Therefore, he cheated with the general public and also played with the faith of general poor public. The public having faith upon the post office and believe that their amount will be safe in the hand of concerned employee and he will deposit the amount in the account of account holders. But the applicant did not perform his duties honestly. Looking to the number 15 OA.No.170/00331/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of charges and the number of transactions the applicant was not entitled to any sympathy. He was not appointed through a regular recruitment. He was engaged initially as provisional engagement person. Therefore, in view of this Tribunal proper punishment has been awarded. This type of employees should be removed from service because strict honesty is required in the conduct of the employee who deals with public transactions.
17. Hence, the OA having no any force therefore dismissed.
(Dr Sanjiv Kumar) (JUSTICE B.K. Shrivastava)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/am/